<p>Just curious, which is more important in your opinion? There seems to be big divide about the issue... I surfed through some of the decisions threads, and Ivy League students with 27's and 3.3's were accepted as athletes. </p>
<p>So a high test score may compensate for a shady gap (but NOT vice versa),
or a high gap may compensate for a shady test score (but not vice versa)? :confused:</p>
<p>You need to have both GPA and test scores for top colleges.
But, in general, GPA from rigorous course > test scores.</p>
<p>An admissions counselor said that GPA is more important than test scores. SAT/ACT only measure your ability to take a test on a single day, but GPA shows your ability over a period of time.</p>
<p>definitely GPA - but SATs can’t be shabby either</p>
<p>GPA is more important because it reflects years of work whereas tests reflect one day.</p>
<p>but to get the high sat score = you actually know things</p>
<p>I know kids with 4.0 UW by taking all CP classes…</p>
<p>Our opinion does not matter. If you want to know how a particular school weighs GPA vs. test scores, go to the CollegeData dot com or College Board site and look up what that school says. Generally, GPA is given more or the same weight, and some schools are test optional. I can’t say that I have heard of any schools that weigh the GPA lower than test scores.</p>
<p>Athletes are judged differently than regular applicants.</p>
<p>I also differ on the GPA-ACT/SAT question.</p>
<p>Ivy’s, when calculating an athletic recruit’s Academic Index (AI), double weight test scores vs GPA. </p>
<p>Doesn’t that tell you something? </p>
<p>I’m sure other schools are different. So the answer may change based on where you’re looking to apply.</p>